Show A to- to Look tok k at at t a asic ic Mh Mining il it ing g Laws aws V Veins t L d des Led es s The following Is an address by William Stunners G. G Jr attorney at law Denver at Iho National Western Mining conference at Denver February 3 3 1956 1056 and Is the second of a series aeries of addresses made at that conference all dealIng dealIng deal deal- Ing with problems confronting mining operations In this area First it Is necessary to take a a careful look at the Mining Act I of 1872 and its predecessor the i Mining Act of 1866 These arc are I what are known as the Basic MinIng Mining Min ing Laws of the United States of America or probably more cor core correctly the General Mining Laws I have selected Section 26 26 Title 31 U U. S. S Code R. R S. S 23 2322 Section 23 of Title 30 30 U. U S. S Code also has to do with veins lodes and ledges This latter section ale al aleso al also so covers the extent of mining claims on the public domain The pertinent part for our discussion Is part of the first sentence Mining tle claims upon veins o or lodes of quartz or other rock in place bearing gold silver sliver lead tin copper or other valuable deposits And Section 26 a part of which I will quote 34 1 follows The locators of all mining locations lo 10 made on any mineral minerai VEIN LODE or LEDGE situated on th the public domain their heirs anc and assigns i shall have the ex elusive right of possession anc and enjoyment of all the surface Included In ins In- In eluded within the lines of the their location and of all VEINS LODES LODES LOD LOD- ES and LEDGES throughout their entire depth the TOP o or APEX of which lies Inside o of such surface lines extended downward downward down down- ward vertically although sue such veins lodes or ledges may so BO fa far depart f from m a perpendicular In their theft Course so as to extend outside the vertical side aide sidelines lines line of of bf such surface locations nut But thel of possession to such exterior parts of such veins or ot l ledges shall be confined to such outside parts of such veins or ledges ledge shall be confined to such portions pardons thereof as lie He between vertical planes drawn downward aJ ai Above described through the end lines of their locations so continued d in their own awn own direction that plan planes will r Int Intersect uch parts of such velnor veins or ledges This portion of ot the Act Section 26 defines the miners miner's Interest outside of ot the boundaries of at his claim on on the lateral rights to which he may be entitled anc and the condition upon which the miners miner's miners miner's miners miner's min min- ers er's entitlement to extra extra lateral lateral rights depend The portion o othis of this section with which we are concerned Is that part which uses the words veins lodes or ledges i It Is necessary for us to determine de de- termine exactly what a vein lode or ledge Is within the contemplation con cone temptation of the General Mining MinIng Min Ing Law A vein lode or ledge was discussed discussed dis dis- cussed at some length in the case of Eureka Consolidated Mining Company against Richmond MinIng Min Min- MinIng Ing Company Federal case affirmed In U. U S. S 26 L L. Ed In an opinion by Justice Field one of bf the foremost author Hies on mining law Justice Field discussed at some length the definition of the words vein lode and ledge as applied to the thi Act The Eureka case occurred with respect to a property which whid lies near Eureka Nevada at a site known as Ruby Hill Hili The rock of several hundred hundred hun dred thousand dollars value which was the subject of the Eureka case was a zone of limestone extending extending extending ex ex- ex- ex tending through and around Ruby Hill Hili The Court In the Eureka case mentioned that the evidence showed that there were bodies Inthe in inthe inthe the limestone mineralized zone occurring in a series or succession succession i sion sian and that all bodies were more or less closely connected Sometimes In Jn apparently isolated Isolated isolated iso Iso- chambers and at other times the was grains of free gold within the limestone The Court went on to say that while the Acts of 1866 and 1872 give no definition of the terms vein lode or ledge they did mention veins or lodes of quartz of other rock in Jn place bearing gold silver sliver lead tin or copper and that the very Inclusion inclusion ion of the word app applicable cable to vein lode or ledge precluded precluded pre pre- eluded the construction of the words In their purely geological definition because cinnabar at the time of the Eureka case and I believe be bee lieve still today has hu not been found to occur in fissure veins Consequently the Court went further to say that the mining laws were not drawn by geologists geologists nor for geologists and that they were not framed in the Interest of science and consequently consequently consequently conse conse- there is no attempt at scientific accuracy in the definition definition definition defini defini- tion of terms The Court paid fald ald they were framed for the protection of min min- minerai mineral era eral and the claims which they lo located located lo- lo 0 and developed and should receive a construction to carry carryout carryout carryout out this purpose purpose- Consequently it would seem seem that the term tenn vein lode or ledge edge on on the basIs basis basis bas bas- is of the Eureka case would indicate in In- InI I the object of Congress In i drafting the mining laws was to toof toof toof of the terms The Eureka case held that the terms vein lode or ledge edge a aused as I used In the General Mining Law Laware Laware are are applicable to any zone or belof belt bel of mineralized rock lying within boundaries clearly separated from neighboring rock It would In elude clude as per the proof of counse counsel for Eureka Consolidated Mining Company minerals found In a mineralized zone or bel bet coming from the same source and created by the same processes It Is interesting to note the characteristics of the deposits Inthe In Inthe n the Eureka case We find a zone of lime between a wall of quartzite quartzite quartzite quart- quart zite and a seam of shale and the limestone had been broken up crushed and disintegrated and by this fracturing of the limestone badly destroying the normal evidence evl evi dence of stratification which ordinarily ordinarily ordinarily or or- is a characteristic of limestone limestone lime lime- stone deposits The fractures and breaks in the limestone deposits created interstices between the limestone rocks which had been broken up served in cooperation cooperation cooperation co co- operation with the the- quartzite to become a trap for the mineral minerai found to be valuable In In the Eureka Eureka Eureka Eur Eur- eka case Consequently the Court pointed point ed out that the quartzite foot wall and the shale hanging wall both retained their characterise characteristics tics Independently of the limestone limestone limestone lime lime- stone and consequently the limestone lime stone met the definition of a mineralized mineralized min min- zone of rock in place The Court also pointed out that the wall of limestone contained a number of caves or chambers which distinguished it from neighboring neighboring nei net rock this may be somewhat somewhat some some- what erroneous in geological construction construction con con- however looking at the broken and crushed characterise Continued on page 4 District Mining Laws Continued from Page Ie 2 tics of ot the limestone and its situation situation situ situ- ln two walls of ot rock which retained the character of ot this rock and found In other areas indicated that the broken crushed crush crush- ed and as the Court said fissured ed cd condition of the limestone as aswell aswell aswell well as the presence of ot Iron pyrite py py- pyrite rite Indicated that a practicing miner would see seek I to follow tollow this zone in the hope that It would disclose valuable minerals to him Consequently the Court said that the zone wah a bone of ot metal metal met met- al bearing rock and consequently fitted the des description In the Act of This IbIs decision decision de de- de vein lode or ledge in the Eureka Consolidated ed Mining Company case granted to the Eureka Company extra- extra lateral rights In a disputed area outside of the Eureka claim and consequently the definition of vein lode or ledge throughout the mining laws should be considered considered considered con con- each time the practicing miner finds any sort of mineral deposit which he wishes to claim The Courts have further held that the words vein lode and ledge are practically synonym synonym- OU ous The term practically synonymous synonymous synonymous synon synon- can be taken for about its worth for an examination of the cases falls to reveal any common common com com- mon ground of different However However How How- ever some help in this respect can be found from the case IRON SILVER IRON SILVER MINING COM- COM PANY against CHEESMAN CHESSMAN U. U S. S 6 S. S Ct UNITED UNITED UNITED UN UN- STATES against SIL IRON VER MINING COMPANY U. U S. S 9 S. S Ct A case which follows fallows the definition given in the Eureka case is WATERLOO WATERLOO WATERLOO WAT WAT- MINING COMPANY against against against a- a DOE 82 F. F 45 49 Silver Iron-Silver Mining Company Ch Cheesman points out that where there are well-defined well boundaries boundaries bou very slight evidence within with with- in these well defined boundaries is sufficient to prove the existence existence exist exist- ence of a general lode and ledge and such boundaries constitute a fissure and if ore Is found therein there in although at reasonable intervals intervals intervals inter inter- vals and in small quantities It is called a lode or vein Now it Is necessary to carefully carefully care care- fully peruse this case particularly particular partIcular- ly In view of ad certain characteristics tics of secondary copper deposits and characteristics of uranium de de- de posits It does not seem possible to define what a reasonable interval between pockets or pods of ore might be Probably the best rule of thumb by which one could determine whether or not he had a continuous ore deposIt deposit deposit de de- de- de posit would be that the I i I ed rock in place should lead the miner from one pocket or pod to to another without crossing between geological formations or through non-mineralized non rock One case in point comes along which puts me In the position of ol having to stick my neck out because because because be be- cause I do not believe that anyone anyone any any- one really knows how the extra extra- lateral rights section of the General General General Gen Gen- eral Mining Law would apply to certain sedimentary ore deposits However let us take the case of secondary ore deposits of some type which is more or less well wel defined by its lying In a mineralIzed mineralized mineralized mineral mineral- zone of sandstone which has hasIn hasin hasin in it this deposit and the deposit of overlying and underlying lenses lens lens- es of shale or These underlying and overlying lenses we will assume more or less define define define de de- de- de fine the deposit However nearby nearby near near- by we have another similar deposit deposIt deposit de de- posit but the conjecture as to whether or not the zone can be followed to this deposit Is purely purely pure pure- ly Iy on a geological hypothesis and not on any fact of existing min mIn- between these two deposIts deposits de de- posits which lie in the same geological geological geological geo geo- logical formation It would be my opinion that in this case no extra extra- lateral rights would accrue to the finder of one deposit assuming a theoretical apex In the area of the finder of the first deposit With regard to secondary ore deposits several things must be considered As mentioned in the above case probably two propositions proposItions will govern one of them not discussed and reserved for later in this paper Is the propositIon proposition tion announced by the Leadville- Leadville Aspen cases An excellent discussion dis of ot this can be Morrison Mining Rights Ed Page et seq and also In hi Lin- Lin avoid any limitation and particularly partIcularly particularly a scientific definition of any dley on Mines 3rd Ed Sections and However It might not be a abad abad abad bad proposition to look a little further at veins lodes and ledges in certain Colorado cases eases In CHEESMAN v v. SHREEVE 40 F. F the Court said th that t a fissure or crevice In which a vein lode or ledge Is In Itself continuous anc and the vein lode or ledge must be outlined by bythe the fissure or crevice however the fissure or crevice Is not necessarily In the geological contemplation of the words FIssure Fissure Fissure Fis sure or crevice but merely In contemplation con of the Mining Law means me rne ans well defined boundaries to the vein lode or ledge Also the Cheesman v v. Shreeve case indicates indi cates sates that disseminated in intervals through rockI rock without connection between min min- Such is not a lode lod ledge or vein Also rock which Is or bedded Is not a or ledge within the contemplation of ot Title 30 Section 26 This his doctrine was was was' outlined In UTAH urAH CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY COM PANY V. V UTAH APEX COMPANY COMPANY COM COM- PANY F F. F In the Utah Consolidated Mining Company case the vein being worked was between a foot toot hanging wall of ot limestone and a foot toot wall of ot quartzite The limestone was waa uniform uniform uni f form rm In texture not fractured and as in the Eureka case and Utah Consolidated claimed as part of the vein within its It location a pod or pocket of ore which was surrounded entirely by the limestone which formed the hanging wall and was located under the property of ot the defendant defendant defend defend- ant company the Utah Apex The Court held that the pocket of ore was not part of ot the Utah Consolidated Consolidated Consolidated Con Con- vein for tor the re reason Son that I It was within the limestone and the limestone was not so heavily mineralized as to constitute a vein lode or ledge An excellent announcement of the elements necessary to constitute tute a vein lode or ledge Is found in the Iron Sliver Mining Company v. v Cheesman wherein the Court says the elements clements of the body of ot mineral minerai constituting the vein lode or ledge are a continuous continuous con con- continuous mineralized body of rock and clearly defined boundaries In other words a vein lode or ledge must possess sufficient showing rock of sufficient value to distinguish It from the country rock However In GRAND CENTRAL MINING COMPANY V. V MAM MAM- MOUTH MINING COMPANY 29 Utah 83 P. P the Court Indicated that an evidence of only only only on on- ly slight mineral value will be sufficient to define the vein lode I or ledge However it would appear ap appear ap- ap pear that this would be purely for the purpose of dating the claim that Is s senior l In l location tJ n and consequently merely for the purpose of discovery of a vein lode or ledge In PROSPECT JONES-PROSPECT MOUNTAIN MOUNTAIN MOUNTAIN MOUN MOUN- TAIN TUNNEL COMPANY 21 Nev 31 P. P gravel deposit de posit surrounded by matter was denied lateral extra-lateral rights because the Court said rocks or broken rocks or wash Is not sufficient but a vein in order to be in place must be where it was originally formed or deposit deposit- ed In view of the Eureka case it would appear that although the rock in which the deposit occurs must be where originally deposited deposit deposit- ed from ground waters would not seem to deny a locater locator his lateral extra-lateral rights In hi spite of the fact that the mineral will have been deposited in a rock at a point considerably later in geologic time than the time at |